ROSEMONT, Ill. — Indiana basketball coach Archie Miller had an opportunity during Big Ten basketball media day to reflect on an unusual situation he had with former player Tim Priller.
As part of Miller’s first team in Bloomington, Priller was the last man on the bench — checking in only in blowout games when the crowd began to chant “We want Priller.”
“There’s no 13th man that ever has had such marketability in the entire time frame of collegiate athletics than Tim Priller,” Miller said. “There’s never been a player that I have ever run into that could capitalize on that word ‘Priller’ more than he could. That’s a credit to him.”
“He’s going to look back in 2027 and say, ‘I could’ve been a millionaire,’” Miller said.
That thought came at the end of a day where questions about California’s Fair Pay to Play Act filled the room.
The act signed into law on Monday by Gov. Gavin Newsom is set to take effect in 2023 and would allow players to hire agents and earn money from endorsements.
Supporters of the law say that it would prevent schools from punishing players who profited from their personal brand and name. But for Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany, any compensation past scholarship coverage is pay-for-play.
“I really don’t see much difference myself between name image and likeness payments by a corporate sponsor or pay-for-play,” Delany said.
With nearly 500,000 NCAA athletes — about 100,000 in Division I — Delany said he believes that the new law would benefit only about 1 or 2% of them. He also said he wanted college athletics not to function as a “minor league” system.
“We’re not perfect, but I think that the opportunities that we have for the great many shouldn’t be sacrificed at the altar of the 1 percent that probably would have an opportunity to benefit here,” Delany said. “It’s a college game. It’s different than the NBA, different than the Olympics, different than the playground. I hope we’re able to maintain the opportunities we have for men and women and avoid pay-for-play insofar as we can.”
Delany, along with most Big Ten coaches, has concerns about how the law would work on a national level. Other states have begun proposing similar laws.
U.S. Rep. Anthony Gonzalez (R-Ohio), who played football at Ohio State and played for the Indianapolis Colts, is considering proposing a national bill similar to California’s.
“I know a lot of people have been pushing for it,” Minnesota coach Richard Pitino said. “I think the biggest thing now is just getting everybody on the same page, getting all the states, getting the NCAA, getting everybody working together is the most important thing.”
Michigan State coach Tom Izzo railed against lawmakers getting involved.
“I sure as hell don’t think it’s a politician’s job to get involved in this. I’m baffled by that a little bit,” he said.
Other coaches had not yet formed opinions about California’s action and its implications.
“I haven’t had a chance to really even think about that,” Michigan coach Juwan Howard said. “I come today at the media day, and I’m like ‘they’re going to think I’m BS-ing.’ I really don’t know what is happening.”
Wisconsin coach Greg Gard said: “I think the one thing is it’s so new, and that’s such an unexplored world, that there’s so much we don’t know of where it’s going to go, what it’s going to lead to.”
Izzo admitted he had studied up on the issue.
“I’m embarrassed to say this, but I had my SID get all you writers, get your articles on it, and I tried to read up on it and figured that you guys are the experts and you would know,” he said. “I had nine articles, and there were nine different opinions.”
Purdue coach Matt Painter said he saw multiple problems with the California law, but added that he wanted athletes to be treated fairly by their schools and the NCAA.
But he is concerned that with the new law comes the potential of creating yet another money problem.
“Money is the root of all evil, but opportunity isn’t,” Painter said. “If I didn’t get the opportunity to have a scholarship and play at Purdue, I wouldn’t be here.”
Painter said that there are ways other than compensation in which the NCAA is treating student-athletes unfairly — such as the recent FBI investigations resulting in current athletes being banned from postseason play because of the actions of former players. This includes situations in which athletes allegedly accepted money from shoe companies.
“I don’t know why the student-athletes are getting hit and we’ve got coaches and boosters and shoe company people making mistakes,” Painter said. “That (expletive) doesn’t make any sense. That makes no sense to me. So why are we taking these opportunities from the student-athletes?”
Former collegiate players such as Miller and Maryland coach Mark Turgeon said they now realize the potential that comes with the large sums of money collegiate athletics rack up.
“In my time, I never probably realized who actually made money on those names, on those faces, on those games, jerseys, newspapers,” said Miller, who was a guard at North Carolina State. “I never really thought of it that way. Now it’s a different age. It’s a different time, so there’s a lot more to think about what goes into it.”
More: Doyel: NCAA chaos coming after California says athletes can profit from name, image, likeness
Turgeon said, “I remember when I played, missing meals and not having enough money because you didn’t have time for a job.
“It’s a little different today than it was then, so you always want what’s best for the student-athlete. You want them to be comfortable. There’s a lot of pressure on them.”
Miller also referenced the pressure on players, particularly as a result of social media. A bad game can lead to instant criticism.
But social media also opens the doors for players to create a stronger, possibly marketable, personal brand.
“You have to be forward-thinking when you’re dealing with young people right now, because there’s so much at stake with the decisions that they make and where they go,” Miller said. “It’s natural right now to start to look and say, ‘is there a better way?’”